[gentoo-user] Re: Daniel Robbins' come back ?

[James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com>]

Jil Larner <jil <at> gnoo.eu> writes:


> May I suggest you split the discussion if you continue about licensing,
> so we can keep a clear topic on Daniel's come back ?

I only use licensing as an example (that I'm willing to defend
as long as it takes) to support the notion of vehicles to
generate revenue around the 'gentoo engine'.  After all, if
you look at Daniel's recent past, he's been searching for ways
to use Gentoo, to *make money*.  Several folks have pointed out
that the majority of people believe that using (gentoo) linux to 
make money is a good idea. Daniel has been with lots of ventures
in the recent past. Gentoo is his next 'bidness'.

(ok that's settled?)

Many folks suspect that Daniel wants control of Gentoo, to make money
the way he envisions. He has not said why he would go to all of this
trouble to be the technical, spiritual and financial leader of 
Gentoo (this makes the devs and others nervous).  If fact it
has been suggested in some of these discussion threads (particularly
on the forums) that turning gentoo towards a profitable business
model is exactly what's on Daniel's mind. Exactly what this entails
is unclear.

If Gentoo is to turn "commercial" then the relevance of licensing
is paramount, IMHO. I only get my digs in, to get the serfs thinking
about their financial future, related to Gentoo and it's future licensing
issues. That the reason for the examples and the "FOTITUDE" to wake up the
serfs that the GPL is hurting them the most. The GPL does not hurt 
large corporations. Maybe, just maybe, the GPL needs a financial test
before it affects a company?  (Just one idea for thought). After
all, a company that grosses less than one million dollars, most
likely does not have anything (code) that anyone else cannot
easily generate.

Gentoo is in play, do you understand this? Ever heard of T Boone Pickens?
Daniel realizes that Gentoo has value. That's why he wants to 
return and rule in an autocratic fashion. He has not asked to
be the technical guru (leader of the tribes) and hand the
financial decision making to others (something a benevolent benefactor
would do). He wants *CONTROL of EVERYTHING* He has insulted the 
devs that get in his way. Go read the 14 pages on the forum and you
get a pretty clear picture, that he is not this *benevolent benefactor*
that the masses believe he is. If he was, he would return, humble
get on 'the team' and let folks who have experience and connections
run the financial affairs of Gentoo, to the benefit of the all devs
and the user alike. 

Why else would Daniel let the foundation sink?  I sure anyone in the know
could have sent in the few hundred bucks to keetp gentoo legally established.
This crisis has been "orchestrated" to force a decision, plain and simple.
It's going to become the fiefdom of somebody and my vote (voice) is that the
serfs (users) and the devs take this puppy and decide how to make
money with it (Plain and simple). If you give it back to daniel, he has
greater rights legally that if the thing just dies. If it dies lots of folks
can pick up the code, rename it and start a fork that can be GPL or
commercial, IMHO.   The GPL get's in the way, IMHO. Handing it over to 
Daniel with ~100% non publish control is a recipe for the serfs  and 
the majority of the serfs to get the privilege of remaining on 
massa's farm, IMHO.


Why else do you think the real discussions are going on behind
closed doors?

come on, use your brain here......
(or at least go read the 14 pages on the forum and then come back with a 
clue).


God, I sure hope I'm wrong..............


James






-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list